Monday, October 29, 2007

Pro Sports Parity

It's interesting, but the way the Patriots and Colts are running roughshod through the NFL, with a showdown set for Sunday, you could argue that there is less parity in the salary-cap controlled NFL right now than there is in free-enterprise driven professional baseball, where of eight playoff teams, only one was a repeat from last year. Communism, once again, is going to be defeated.

5 comments:

DrD said...

I thought we were done talking about sports...?

Just kidding....

I see your point, but to sing the eternal praises of a Free-Market Economy based on the salary cap vs. revenue sharing argument is dubious, indeed.

Both approaches have their merits and downsides. They always do.

From my perspective, I'd say that the laws of balance (yin-yang) are in play within any system, whether it's hierarchal or basically flat. Therefore, no matter what system you devise, some form of balance will emerge. It always does.

It's like the Dems and the Republicans. The Dems take power for a while, then the pendulum swings and the Republicans take over.

Actually, the current Party of Torture was the same party to fight against slavery in Lincoln's day. How about that?

One clear flaw with your assertion is that the deep-pocketed Rex Sox won the Series. It wasn't the little guys...it wasn't a small-market team.

So, while it does matter that the "have-nots" are becoming more competitive in MLB, the second-wealthiest team in the league still won all the marbles.

And to suggest that the NFL, despite its two dominant teams, does not have as much parity as MLB baseball is pure sophistry.

Apart from the Pats and the Colts, the Cowboys are 6-1---and the Steelers, Titans, Jaguars, Lions, and Giants are all 5-2.

The NFL season is a along way from over. And while the Colts and Pats are clearly the two dominant teams, anything can happen. The best team doesn't always win.

Therefore, despite the attraction of your argument, I don't think it's as simple as you suggest.

Note: I can remember when I was a kid, the Boston Patriots sucked ass. They lost all the time while the Vikings won.

Now the Vikings lose every week and the Patriots win. Maybe that will change someday, too.

DDDDDDDDDDDD

DReilly said...

Leave it to Dr. D to throw in a Red Sox comment. I can't wait to be tortured when I go to class tomorrow. Ralph, I am a fellow Yankees fan, so I can feel your pain on this one.

Although it seems like the Pats and Colts are the unstoppable forces of the NFL for yet another season, I agree with you Dr. D, as I currently watch my 5-1 Packers (hopefully 6-1 in a few hours)take on Denver. And where were the cheeseheads last year? If I recall correctly, they didn't reach .500 until the last game of the season.

Tom Brady can be beat this season. It's just a matter of where and when.




DR

Ralph said...

I will assert that the only reason these other team in the NFL have good records is that they don't play the Colts and Patriots every week. If they did, they'd all be 0-16.

DrD said...

I agree with the assertion that the Colts and the Pats are in a league by themselves.

Even the 6-1 Packers would get smashed by either team.

I just wanted to hold you up at the Capitalism vs. Communism comment. I love your strong insight, but I don't think it's that simple.

Actually, I think the world needs a both styles: the workers need power and the owners need power.

I'm seeing the contrasts here at KU...

For example, Mercyhurst represents pure Capitalism. It has a president whose word is law. There is no union. The faculty and staff must adibe by the laws of the king--like it or not.

The Mercyhurst model is both good and bad. If you are in favor with the king, you win, and life is good. If you lose favor, you are out and there's not much you can do about it. No appeals. No second chances. Go ahead and pack your bags.

That's the downside of the capitalistic model.

The good part about Mercyhurst is--once they decide to accomplish something--it's done very quickly. A king can get things done more quickly than a committee.

Smart Classrooms? No problem. A brand-new building? It'll be up in a year. Perfect for the Garveys and Browns of the world.

In contrast, KU is more Communist/Socialist. Everyone has a say, and while that's good in some ways, it's not always as efficient. For example, we definitely earn more money through the union because we have more legal power. We can actually force the administration to behave in certain ways.

That idea is laughable at Mercyhurst.

However, when it comes time for a new building on campus at KU, it takes five to seven years, because it has to gain approval from everyone and their mothers. So, there certainly can be too many cooks in the kitchen.

That's the downside of the socialist model.

Okay. This has been fun, but I've made my points.

Congratulations to the Packers last night. They looked pretty winded at high altitude, but Bret Favre often finds a way to win.

DDDDDDDDDDD

Ralph said...

State education is definitely a socialist model,which I will admit works better than trangressions into communism has. I'm not sure what the difference is but my perception is that socialism is a bit elitist, kind of an oligarchy, while communism truly tries to incorporate the masses. Socialism works at Kutztown, becuase you are dealing with mainly educated, intelligent people. In Russia, you had too many dogs, or people that really would have been in favor of capitalism if they would have been the ones on top. For socialism/communism to work, everybody has to buy into the system. Belichick obviously isn't buying in...